Interview scorecard template

IT Auditor interview scorecard

Evaluate IT Auditor candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, real incidents and findings, risk judgement, and getting things fixed. Technical depth leads at 35%, so check command of ITGC domains: access provisioning reviews, change management, job scheduling, and backup testing across SAP, Active Directory, or Oracle, plus COBIT, ISO. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring

security compliancecisacontrol testingit auditsox itgc

TL;DR

For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate names specific control objectives, walks through sampling logic for user access reviews, and cites frameworks applied on real audit engagements. For real incidents and findings, look for evidence the candidate describes named findings with root cause, evidence trail, severity rating, and how the issue survived challenge from IT owners. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.

Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

Evaluation factor

Technical depth

35% weight

Check command of ITGC domains: access provisioning reviews, change management, job scheduling, and backup testing across SAP, Active Directory, or Oracle, plus COBIT, ISO 27001, and CISA credentials.

Evidence to listen for

Command of the specific attack surface, tooling, and controls the role covers
Understands how the underlying system works, not just how the tool reports on it
Can explain an attack or control chain end to end
Distinguishes what they found themselves from what a scanner flagged

Five-point scoring guide

Poor

Tool operator only; no understanding of the systems underneath.

Needs Improvement

Runs tooling but cannot explain findings or how the attack works.

Satisfactory

Solid working knowledge; depth thins outside familiar tooling.

Very Good

Strong command of the domain; explains attack and control chains clearly.

Excellent

Names specific control objectives, walks through sampling logic for user access reviews, and cites frameworks applied on real audit engagements.

Evaluation factor

Real incidents and findings

30% weight

Probe actual findings raised: segregation of duties conflicts, orphaned privileged accounts, unapproved production changes. Ask for evidence gathered, workpaper structure, and how management disputed the exception.

Evidence to listen for

Brings specific incidents, findings, or audits they personally worked
States their own role rather than the team's
Describes what was actually at risk and what changed afterwards
Can talk about a finding that turned out to be wrong

Five-point scoring guide

Poor

No hands-on work; knowledge is entirely certification or coursework.

Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their contribution to an incident.

Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

Very Good

Specific incidents with clear personal scope and what changed after.

Excellent

Describes named findings with root cause, evidence trail, severity rating, and how the issue survived challenge from IT owners.

Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

20% weight

Assess how they rate residual risk versus inherent risk, decide which exceptions are material to SOX, and scope audits when systems and time are limited.

Evidence to listen for

Prioritises by actual exploitability and business impact, not raw severity scores
Can argue for accepting a risk as well as fixing it
Knows the difference between a finding and a problem
Does not cry wolf or wave things through

Five-point scoring guide

Poor

Treats every finding as critical, or waves real risk through.

Needs Improvement

Follows severity scores mechanically; no business context.

Satisfactory

Reasonable prioritisation; less confident arguing for risk acceptance.

Very Good

Prioritises by exploitability and impact; can justify accepting a risk.

Excellent

Distinguishes a control deficiency from a significant deficiency with reasoning, and justifies scoping decisions against financial statement relevance.

Evaluation factor

Getting things fixed

15% weight

Test follow-through on remediation: tracking management action plans, retesting closed items, escalating overdue findings to the audit committee, and negotiating realistic dates with IT leadership.

Evidence to listen for

Writes findings engineers can act on rather than a wall of output
Has persuaded a team to fix something they did not want to fix
Explains risk to executives in business terms
Works with the org rather than policing it

Five-point scoring guide

Poor

Adversarial with engineering; findings never get fixed.

Needs Improvement

Reports are unactionable; no influence beyond raising tickets.

Satisfactory

Adequate reporting; relies on mandate rather than persuasion.

Very Good

Actionable findings and a real record of getting fixes shipped.

Excellent

Shows closure rates or retest outcomes, and explains how they held owners to dates without losing working relationships.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a IT Auditor

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

01
Can you describe a situation where your findings led to significant change?
02
Do you have experience improving internal control procedures?
03
Do you have experience with forensic or investigative audits?
04
How do you go about planning an IT audit?
05
What types of evidence would you look for during an audit?

See the complete IT Auditor question set

Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards